A DIVIDED MILTON heads to Town Meeting on Monday, where meeting members will consider an array of rezoning plans to boost density in the affluent Boston suburb.  

But the only plan that would make the town compliant with the controversial MBTA Communities housing law will be presented to voters over the objections of the planning board that initially crafted it.  

And while town government decided against more litigation to fight the law, which requires that cities and towns served by public transit zone for a multifamily district of reasonable size, a suit brought by 16 Milton residents sits before a judge who just last week tossed similar arguments from nine other towns. In broad strokes, the towns are all arguing that the way the state housing office set its zoning regulations created unmanageable burdens for the towns, with significant grant funding at stake. 

Across the state, options are narrowing for municipalities to resist the housing mandate, which the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in January was constitutional once new regulations are put out properly. 

A Milton planning board meeting on Thursday brimmed with frustration and resignation.  

“We have some people in the town that express and feel fear,” said member Sean Fahy. “We have other people in the town that express and feel excitement. We have people that have concern, and we have people that have optimism. We have people that see financial success, and we have people that see financial harm. We have people that see developmental destruction, and we have people that see development that’s complementary to the town of Milton. And the divide that’s existed now for years really comes down to the classification of Milton.” 

Most members of the board are backing a plan that would treat the town as an “adjacent community” that would involve up-zoning by 10 percent of the town’s current number of units, or around 1,000 units. The state, however, considers Milton a “rapid-transit community” that is required to zone for a potential 25 percent increase in total units, or about 2,461 units. 

The argument turns on whether the Mattapan High–Speed Trolley, which trundles through part of Milton, should count as a subway under the regulations defining rapid transit, or whether the commuter rail and Red Line subway stops in neighboring municipalities mean that the town is more accurately “adjacent” to reliable MBTA options. 

After the planning board in May crafted, approved, and then withdrew a plan that would meet the 25 percent threshold, a group of citizens successfully petitioned to put the plan on the Town Meeting warrant anyway.  

“The plan that the planning board worked on is not perfect, but it is a good one,” said Town Meeting member Karen Friedman-Hanna, who was among those who organized the citizen’s petition drive. “We have three forms of public transit – that qualifies us as a rapid-transit community. Even if everything moves more slowly than people would like, that’s not what defines a rapid transit community.” 

Most speakers at the meeting Thursday supported the 10 percent plan, with a town meeting member describing his neighbors as “shocked” by the 25 percent option before them. Resident Joe Mazzotta, noting that the “tide is not in our favor” on the classification front, expressed concern that the latest higher density plan is “far from equitable” even after adjustments to reduce the pressure on the eastern side of town. 

He noted that Lexington, which was an early and enthusiastic adopter of new zoning, is dramatically reining in its expansive MBTA Communities zoning districts in the face of significantly more development proposals than first anticipated. 

The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities reviewed both Milton plans, according to planning board member and secretary Cheryl Tougias, and found small issues to fix in the 25 percent plan. Regarding the 10 percent option, she said, the housing office simply stated that it was not a compliant plan. 

“I feel that Town Meeting has the right and the authority to adopt zoning that would allow us to be compliant,” Tougias said. “I am disappointed that this board decided to pull that back,” she said of the 25 percent plan, thanking the citizens for putting it forward anyway. 

Planning board member Margaret Oldfield distanced the board from the 25 percent version, saying “the planning board worked on the plan, but it is not our plan.” She remains unconvinced by arguments that up-zoning will have a positive impact on the town, even if tax revenues improve.  

“Not everything comes down to money,” she said. “We all are here for a reason. We’re here for our trees, here for our open spaces.”  

The suburbs are feeling the squeeze as city prices push residents out, she said, and “we are forced to fix a problem that Boston has created.” 

A Superior Court ruling on June 6 rejected every argument offered by nine towns to halt their compliance requirements. Superior Court Justice Mark Gildea, who is also the judge overseeing a lawsuit brought by 16 Milton taxpayers in late May, dismissed arguments from the towns that the housing law is an “unfunded mandate” that would present unique burdens for different municipalities if they saw a sharp increase in housing units.

The zoning regulation, does not force the towns to approve construction, he wrote, and municipalities already have access to competitive grants specifically intended to address housing and infrastructure needs. 

Middleton’s select board met in closed executive session on Thursday night to review the court ruling and discuss potential litigation strategy. Milton’s Select Board decided last week not to pursue litigation, to the chagrin of several planning board members. 

Multiple select boards and community development officials over the past few years “all had an opportunity to fight for Milton, for its classification,” said Fahy of the planning board.  It took 16 residents, he said, “to bring an attempt at adjudication to resolve this issue.”  

He characterized the town’s executive government as ignoring the concerns of the 54 percent of voters who tossed the compliant zoning plan last year. “We punted as leadership of the town,” Fahy said. 

Gildea presided over a hearing on Thursday afternoon on the Milton case, which seeks an injunction stopping the state housing office from enforcing its determination that Milton is a “rapid-transit” community.  

Planning board members said they did not expect a clear ruling by the time Town Meeting starts on Monday. Several were already preparing for what they expect to be an overwhelmingly supportive vote for the 25 percent plan, as Town Meeting passed a compliant plan in 2023. 

Without weighing in on either version, resident Leonard Glynn offered one of the last remarks of Thursday evening’s discussion.  

“Our state government was attempting to address what’s a genuine national problem,” he said. Generations of children, including his own, can’t imagine buying a home without assistance from their parents. Whether the 10 percent or 25 percent wins out, he said, “I’m in favor of Milton doing the best we can to encourage housing construction, within reason.”